Aww come on man!!! Nadal owns Federer, mono or no mono, or mano y mano [which is how I judge]!
i would hardly say he "owns Federer". he has some very clear advantages, and his style of play is very difficult for Federer to counter on clay, most notably because Nadal is a lefty, and, the key to the victories has been Nadal's topspin forehand on clay vs Federer's one handed backhand, which has proved to be the difference in the matchs...
they have played in their matches a total of 69 sets vs each other...
Nadal leads, 40 sets to 29 sets. if those 69 sets, 16 were decided in tie breakers, and 22 were decided by a single break of service game. in other words, 60% of the sets they have played, have been decided on a tiebreak or one service game break overall....so it is hardly being "owned", though Nadal does have the edge.
We all saw Wimbledon last year, Roger could not have played any better. If mono affected his game at that time then he should go sip some dirty water bottles because he played about 10 times worse this morning.
indeed, he did not play well vs roddick at all...but if you think Roger could not have played any better at Wimbledon, you are a bit off...
Federer played well below his usual level...he served 66%, while Nadal served 73%.
Federer had *52* unforced errors...while Nadal had only 27
Federer uncharacteristically threw away break chances (converted only 1 of 13)
he was poor at the net, converting only 52% of his chances (42 of 75)
and, finally even with all that, Federer won 204 points, Nadal won 209...of the 209 points Nadal won, over 1/4th were Federer unforced errors.
They both maxed out. Nadal was just too relentless for him.
well, a combination, actually. Nadal's relentlessness, and Federer's uncharacteristically huge unforced errors.
Roger definitely deserves to be #1 now but Nadal [IMO] deserved to be #1 before he even actually was #1.
well, we discussed that last year :wink:
And I also think Roger lucked out that Nadal's injuries caught up with him, but nonetheless, they come with the territory if you play so violently.
true...but Nadal also lucked out with Federer's mono, since throughout the spring, Federer was unable to defend the points that would have kept him atop the rankings, even if Nadal deserved the #1 ranking.
Roger is a beautiful player but I was disappointed in his performance today. And he does at times have the tendency to get bullied, especially by Nadal.
yes, it was not his best performance, i agree.
but i have never actually seen Federer get "bullied". I saw Nadal beat him very badly at the French last year, and i have seen Nadal overcome him quote a few times, (never as bad as the French last year) but i have seen Federer wipe the court with Nadal a few times...most notably:
Hamburg 2007 on Clay, after losing the first set 6-2, Federer came back and won the next two sets, 6-2, 6-0...on clay! (no easy feat against Nadall)
Masters Cup 2007, 6-4 6-1
Wimbledon 2006, Federer beat him 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
up until last year, the matchup was 8-6 in favor of Nadal.
To me Nadal is the relentless warrior and Federer is the sorcerer or magician.
true.
but, we cannot forget, that the slower game and higher bounce favors Nadal, and tennis, has been moving (very sadly) away from speed and skill towards attrition.
Wimbledon surface in 2008 and 2009, is actually now *SLOWER* then most hard courts and it has been changed to a surface which gives a more true bounce.
no longer can the fastere harder hitting players count on the fast, low skidding bounce...instead, more of a true bounce, and less skid and speed, aids the heavy spin, defenders like Nadal...allowing them that extra split second to get to the ball, that on previous surfaces would be a winner past them.
this is an ATP issue, and i really hate the ATP stance on all this...the whole point of having different surfaces and speeds was to provide variety throughout the seasons...
what is the point of different surfaces, if you are going to make them all the same speed and bounce? sort of defeats the purpose.
frankly, i do not like the fact that hard courts are so prevalent...tennis was designed for grass courts, and it is a travesty, that there are only 6 grass court tourneys a year, and they are crammed in to 5 weeks, so, even if you played straight through, you could only play three maximum, since Halle/Queens Club is the same week, then Hertogenbosch/Eastbourne are the same week, then Wimbledon, then Newport (which starts the day after the Wimbledon final, so nobody can effectively enter that has made it into the quarters of wimbledon)
it is absurd...the US Open and Australian used to be on grass decades ago...now they are hard courts...
the constant smashing on hardcourts is causing injuries...
IMO, the entire summer season should play on grass...
i do not know if you have ever played on grass, but it is absolutely amazing...i love it. it is how tennis should be played, and always was cept for the clay courts.
anyway, more athletes are going to start breaking down for this simple reason:
if you increase the size of the ball, and then slow down the speed of the surface, it makes for much longer, defensive, rallies...more rallies equals much longer matches, longer matches, leads to wear and tear, and wear and tear and longer matches on hard courts, is a killer. imagine 3-4 miles of quick, side to side movement, bursts and sprints and pounding on essentially concrete.
it is ruining the game IMO.
the balls were even made 6% bigger this year to slow the game down further...advantage to the counterpunchers and defensive baseliners, like NAdal and Murray and Hewitt etc.
Back to this morning's championship, I thought the last set was a pain in the ass to watch! Seriously! A service war with no rallies.
i did not think it was a pain to watch necessarily, it was terrifying...though you are right, it was indeed a service war...(though nothing like the horrific 2001 Wimbledon Final between Ivanisevic and Rafter)
They weren't even trying to win points when they weren't on serve half the time. 40 love game after 40 love game.
well, i don't know if it was *THAT* extreme :wink:
Federer put on the best serving show of his life, wheras Roddick's serve was starting to flag in terms of velocity and consistency from the higher levels earlier in the match...
Federer had several chances where he made it to 30-40, but his return game was way off...had he been on his usual way, it likely would have been a three-four set win and not what it became.
Roger just did enough to hold on because you knew at some point Roddick was going to falter. I hope and pray that Nadal will return healthy and continue to have a very long career, even just for the sake of the sport. No one else can step to Federer.
true...i think Murray may surprise you though...i really do not like him very much...I dislike counterpunchers/defensive baseliners like Nadal and Murray
. I think it is very negative tennis. I respect its efficiency, but it is just a war of attrition style based on causing errors, not hitting winners and being agressive. (it is like the way Germany used to play soccer vs the way Brazil plays)
Murray and Nadal i think will be the next rivalry over the years possibly, which will be interesting, since Murray is the only one close to Nadal in terms of ability to retrieve and defend with such capacity.
I agree that the talent level that Sampras was playing with was far beyond what it has been the past few years. I also think Federer and Nadal still may have beaten all of them.
I agree that both Federer and Nadal would hand ass whippings to most of the rivals from the Sampras years, but frankly, i think that gets overplayed alot with regards to how good Sampras' competition was.
I think Courier was totally overrated.
Agassi was great, but the pre-98 Agassi was not as good as the Agassi that finally dedicated himself to tennis.
Becker, Edberg were already in decline by 92, Wilander was finished a bit earlier.
aside from that, there were alot of 1 or 2 hit wonders in that era, 1992-2000...Kafelnikov, Breugera, Muster, Krajicek, Moya, Korda...it was still basically Sampras, then Agassi, then everyone else.
